
CBN BRNCH 


GenColl 






COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 





























« 





















































Questions Evolution 
Does Not Answer 


BY 

JOHN F. HERGET 

Minister Ninth Street Baptist Church 
Cincinnati, O. 



CINCINNATI, O. 

THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY 


Copyrighted, 1923, 

The Standard Publishing Company 


Q H Sb'-l 
.H4 



NOV i 9 1923 

©C1A7G5059 

vie 






\ 


^CIENCE consists of the body 
of well-ascertained and verified 
facts and laws of nature. It is 
clearly to be distinguished from the 
mass of theories, hypotheses and 
opinions which are of value in the 
progress of science. 


—HENRY FAIRFIELD OSBORN, 
In “Th# Origin and Evolution of Life.” 
















TPO the blessed memory of my 
father and mother, whose 
guidance in childhood and youth 
led me to know and follow Christ, 
this little volume is affectionately 
dedicated. 




CONTENTS 


Page 

Foreword. 9 

I. 

Evolution Defined and De¬ 
scribed . 11 

II. 

The Origin of Life. 19 

III. 

The Origin of Conscious Life 30 

IV. 

The Origin of Specific Forms 
of Life . 35 

V. 

The Origin of Self-conscious 
Life. 57 


7 









FOREWORD 

T HIS book is the result of a pur¬ 
pose to find out what facts have 
been discovered by scientists to sup¬ 
port the theory of the evolution of 
organic life. I have tried to dis¬ 
tinguish between the facts which 
they present and their deductions 
from those facts. Facts we should 
be willing to accept, and must ac¬ 
cept, from whatever source, if we 
are honestly seeking the truth, but 
their philosophical opinions we 
have a full right to question. 

The book, therefore, consists 
largely of quotations, and these are 
made, for the most part, from 
avowed advocates of the theory of 
evolution. If it shall prove to be 
of any help, especially to young 


Foreword 


people, whose minds have been per¬ 
plexed over the questions with 
which it deals, I shall feel amply 
repaid for the many hours spent in 
its preparation. 

John F. Herget. 

Cincinnati, O., June, 1923. 


10 



I 


Evolution Defined and Described. 



'HERE is no definition or in- 


A terpretation of evolution upon 
which there is general agreement 
among scientists, especially as to 
its scope, causes, factors, condi¬ 
tions and processes. 

Le Conte defines evolution as 
“ continuous progressive change, 
according to certain laws, by means 
of resident forces.’’ (“Evolution 
and Its Relation to Religious 
Thought,” p. 9.) In other words, 
evolution is the gradual, contin¬ 
uous and progressive development 
of all life in its present complex 
forms, including human life, from 
one or a few simple forms or mi¬ 


ll 


Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


nute germinal vesicles, and these in 
turn from non-living matter, by 
means of resident forces. 

Organic evolution begins with 
the appearance on the globe of a 
single particle of living protoplasm. 
Darwin speaks of a few forms or 
one. (“ Origin of Species/’ p. 505.) 
Huxley says: “If all living beings 
have been evolved from pre-exist¬ 
ing forms of life, it is enough that 
a single particle of living proto¬ 
plasm should once have appeared on 
the globe, as the result of no mat¬ 
ter what agency. In the eyes of a 
consistent evolutionist, any further 
independent formation of proto¬ 
plasm would be sheer waste/ * 
(“Anatomy of Invertebrated Ani¬ 
mals, ” p. 40.) 

There are many varieties of evo¬ 
lutionists holding widely separated 
views. Darwin, making room for 
the Creator to account for the ori- 


12 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


gin of life to the extent of one or 
a few forms (“ Origin of Species,” 
p. 505), applies the principle of 
evolution to the development of all 
organic life, vegetable, animal and 
even human life with its mental, 
moral and spiritual faculties. 
Huxley accounts for the origin of 
life by spontaneous generation or 
through some other agency, and 
applies the theory of evolution to 
the development of all organic life, 
introducing, however, the power of 
the Creator to account for certain 
of the higher faculties of man. 
Wallace quotes Huxley as saying: 
“One thing which weighs with me 
against pessimism, and tells for a 
benevolent Author of the universe, 
is my enjoyment of scenery and 
music. I do not see how they can 
have helped in the struggle for ex¬ 
istence. They are gratuitous gifts.” 
(Wallace, “Darwinism,” p. 478.) 




Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


Wallace himself adheres “to con¬ 
tinuity of physical and mental evo¬ 
lution/ * but at “three distinct 
stages of progress from the in¬ 
organic world of matter and mo¬ 
tion up to man, when some new 
cause or power must necessarily 
have come into action/ ’ he intro¬ 
duces “an unseen universe, a world 
of spirit, to which the world of 
matter is altogether subordinate.’’ 
(Wallace, “Darwinism/’ pp. 474- 
478.) Prof. Ernst Haeckel, on the 
other hand, says that the best 
definition of evolution is the “non- 
miraculous origin and progress of 
the universe/’ declaring that if the 
Creator is admitted at any one 
point, He may as well be admitted 
all along the line. 

There are those who believe that 
evolution has gone forward from 
the simplest to the most complex 
forms of life by incredibly slow 

14 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


and gradual changes. There are 
others who hold that the evolu¬ 
tionary process has been one of 
crises and catastrophes with sud¬ 
den appearances and disappear¬ 
ances of certain forms, and with 
long intervening periods of com¬ 
parative inactivity and stagnation. 
In explaining the exceeding rare¬ 
ness of transitional forms, Le Conte 
says: “I believe that the true rea¬ 
son of this is that the steps of evo¬ 
lution are not always uniform. 
Nearly all evolutionists have as¬ 
sumed, and even insisted, on uni¬ 
formity, as the opposite of catas- 
trophism and of supernaturalism, 
and, therefore, as essential to the 
idea of evolution. They say that 
the constancy of the action of the 
forces of change necessitates the 
uniformity of the rate of change. 
But, in fact, this is not always, nor 
even usually, true. Causes or forces 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


are constant, but phenomena every¬ 
where and in every department of 
nature are paroxysmal. ’ ’ (“ Evolu¬ 
tion and Its Relation to Religious 
Thought,” pp. 257, 258.) 

There are those who think of 
evolution in terms of progress. 
Professor Conklin, of Princeton 
University, emphasizes this view. 
He says: “The past evolution of 
the human race has been guided 
by the elimination of the unfit, 
whether physical, intellectual or 
social, and the future progress of 
the race must depend on this same 
process.” Again he says: “In par¬ 
ticular instances, simplification and 
degeneration have occurred, but, in 
the main, evolution has been pro¬ 
gressive; that is, it is marked by 
increasing complexity of structure, 
functions and adaptations.” (“Evo¬ 
lution of Man,” p. 159.) On the 
other hand, there are those who in- 

16 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


sist that we should not think of 
evolution in terms of progress, but 
merely in terms of adjustment. 
Prof. Albert GK Keller, of the 
Yale University, for instance, says: 
“It is one of the common miscon¬ 
ceptions about evolution, and one 
into which Henry Adams fell, that 
it means progress. It means ad¬ 
justment only. . . . The fact is that 
the terms progress and retrogres¬ 
sion, as their etymology indicates, 
imply that the user of them has 
selected some center of operations 
from which he can infallibly ad¬ 
judge what is ‘pro’ and what is 
‘retro.’ He is at liberty, in free 
countries, to do this for himself, 
and to try to persuade others that 
he is right, and, sometimes, whole 
groups can agree on what is prog¬ 
ress and what is not, but it is gen¬ 
erally impossible to get extended 
unanimity as to the identity of 

17 


2 



Questions Evolution Does Not Aiiswer 


i forward’ and ‘backward.’ . . . 
But this whole difficulty is escaped 
in the case of evolution, if we con¬ 
sent to view that process as it is, 
and do not, in our straining after 
the assessment of things as pro¬ 
gressive, hug to ourselves the mis¬ 
conception that evolution and prog¬ 
ress are synonymous.” (“The 
Evolution of Man,” pp. 126, 127.) 

Comparing all these views of evo¬ 
lution, some of which are radically 
different, held in more or less modi¬ 
fied forms by evolutionists in gen¬ 
eral, it is very evident that there 
is no “scientifically demonstrated” 
theory, nor even what might be 
called a consensus of scholarship, 
on so fundamental a principle as the 
derivation of life on the globe in its 
many complex forms from one or 
a few simple forms. 


18 



II. 


The Origin of Life. 

P ROFESSOR TYNDALL affirms 
that in material atoms reside 
the “promise and potency of life.” 
Huxley admits that he finds no 
record of the commencement of 
life, but affirms his “philosophical 
faith” in “the evolution of living 
protoplasm from non-living mat¬ 
ter.” (Lull, “Evolution of the 
Earth,” p. 107.) He says: “Look¬ 
ing back through the prodigious 
vista of the past, I find no record 
of the commencement of life, and, 
therefore, I am devoid of any means 
of forming a definite conclusion as 
to the conditions of its appearance. 
Belief, in the scientific sense of the 
word, is a serious matter and needs 

19 


Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


strong foundations. To say, there¬ 
fore, in the admitted absence of evi¬ 
dence, that I have any belief as to 
the mode in which the existing 
forms of life have originated, would 
be using words in a wrong sense. 
But expectation is permissible 
where belief is not, and if it were 
given to me to look beyond the 
abyss of geologically recorded time, 
to the still more remote period 
when the earth was passing through 
physical and chemical conditions 
which it can no more see again than 
a man can recall his infancy, I 
should expect to be a witness of 
the evolution of living protoplasm 
from non-living matter. I should 
expect to see it appear under forms 
of great simplicity, endowed, like 
existing fungi, with the power of 
determining the formation of new 
protoplasm from such matters as 
ammonium carbonates, oxalates and 

20 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


tartrates, alkaline and earthy phos¬ 
phates and water, without the aid 
of light. That is the expectation 
to which analogical reasoning leads 
me, but I beg you once more to 
recollect that I have no right to 
call my opinion anything but an 
act of philosophical faith/ ’ Again 
Huxley says: “If the hypothesis 
of evolution is true, living matter 
must have originated from non¬ 
living matter, for, by the hypoth¬ 
esis, the condition of the globe 
was at one time such that living 
matter could not have existed in 
it, life being entirely incompatible 
with the gaseous state. But, living 
matter once originated, there is no 
necessity for another origination, 
since the hypothesis postulates the 
unlimited, though, perhaps, not in¬ 
definite, modifiability of matter.” 
(“Anatomy of Invertebrated Ani¬ 
mals,” p. 41.) 


21 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


Joseph Le Conte, although not 
affirming his faith in the spontane¬ 
ous generation of life, and denying 
that the truth of evolution and that 
of spontaneous generation must 
stand or fall together, says: “If 
life did once arise spontaneously 
from any lower forces, physical or 
chemical, by natural process, the 
conditions necessary for so ex¬ 
traordinary a change could hardly 
be expected to occur but once in the 
history of the earth. They are, 
therefore, now, not only unrepro- 
ducible, but unimaginable.” (Ev¬ 
olution and Its Relation to Relig¬ 
ious Thought,” p. 14.) Surely one 
might be pardoned for wondering 
why it was that nature, so prodigal 
in the reproduction of the germs of 
life, should have been so frugal as 
to produce only one original living 
cell when so much depended on its 
preservation and propagation. 

22 



Questions Evolution Does Not Ansiver 


Lorande Loss Woodruff, pro¬ 
fessor of biology in Yale College, 
says: “We thus reach the general 
conclusion that, so far as human 
observation and experimentation 
go, no form of life arises to-day ex¬ 
cept from pre-existing life. But 
since life is present on the earth 
now, ... we have to consider the 
following alternative: Either life 
was transported to this planet from 
some other part of the universe, or 
life arose spontaneously from non¬ 
living matter at one period at least 
in the past as a natural result of 
the evolution of the earth and its 
elements.’ ’ (“Evolution of the 
Earth,” Lull, pp. 93, 94.) Then he 
goes on to quote the opinions of 
the various scientists supporting 
one or the other of these views. 

Prof. Harry Burr Ferris says: 
“Evolution must likewise as¬ 
sume that under some favorable 


23 



Questions Evolution Docs Not Answer 


condition the earliest living forms 
were evolved from the inorganic 
world. ’ ’ (“ The Evolution of Man, ’ ’ 
p. 78.) 

There is, however, positively no 
evidence that life ever originated 
from non-living matter. Woodruff, 
speaking of Henry Baker as “the 
versatile microscopist of the Royal 
Society,’’ quotes him as saying: 
“Nothing now seems more contrary 
to reason than that chance and 
nastiness should give a being to 
uniformity, regularity and beauty, 
. . . and create living animals. . . . 
This, however, was the opinion, not 
only of the ignorant and illiterate, 
but of the most learned, grave phi¬ 
losophers of preceding ages, and 
would probably still have been 
taught and believed had not micro¬ 
scopes discovered the manner how 
all these things are generated, and 
restored to God the glory of His 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


own amazing work.” (Lull, “Evolu¬ 
tion of the Earth,” pp. 91, 92.) 

Edmund B. Wilson, of Columbia 
University, says: “As early as 1855 
Virchow positively maintained the 
universality of cell-division, con¬ 
tending that every cell is the off¬ 
spring of a pre-existing parent 
cell. ... At the present day this 
conclusion rests upon a foundation 
so firm that we are justified in re¬ 
garding it as a universal law of 
development.” (“The Cell in 
Development and Inheritance,” p. 
10.) And Woodruff quotes Wilson 
as saying: “The study of the cell 
has on the whole seemed to widen 
rather than to narrow the enor¬ 
mous gap that separates even the 
lowest forms of life from the in¬ 
organic world.” (Lull, “Evolu¬ 
tion of the Earth,” p. 94.) Wood¬ 
ruff further declares: “All will un¬ 
doubtedly admit that we are at the 

25 




Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


present time utterly unable to give 
an adequate explanation of the 
fundamental life processes in terms 
of physics and chemistry. Whether 
we shall ever be able to do so is 
unprofitable to speculate about, 
though certainly the twentieth cen¬ 
tury finds relatively few representa¬ 
tive scientists who really expect a 
scientific explanation of life ever 
to be attained, or who expect that 
protoplasm will ever be artificially 
synthesized.’’ (Lull, “Evolution 
of the Earth,” p. 95.) 

In answering the question, “Is 
life upon the earth something 
new?” Henry Fairfield Osborn 
says: “The more modern scientific 
opinion is that life arose from a 
recombination of forces pre-exist¬ 
ing in the cosmos.” He adds: “We 
may express as our own opinion, 
based upon the application of uni- 
formitarian evolutionary principles, 

26 




Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


that when life appeared on the 
earth some energies pre-existing in 
the cosmos were brought into re¬ 
lation with the chemical elements 
already existing. ” He believes 
“that the origin of life, as well as 
its development, will ultimately 
prove to be a true evolution within 
the pre-existing cosmos.” But he 
admits that the “question is one 
which has not yet been answered 
by science.” (“The Origin and 
Evolution of Life,” Osborn, pp. 1, 
2.) And again he says: “The mode 
of the origin of life is a matter of 
pure speculation.” (“Origin and 
Evolution of Life,” p. 67.) Huxley 
says: “Of the causes which have 
led to the origination of living mat¬ 
ter, then, it may be said, we know 
absolutely nothing.” (“Anatomy 
of Invertebrated Animals,” p. 41.) 
Darwin admits that “science as yet 
throws no light on the problem of 

27 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


the essence and origin of life. ? ? 
(“Origin of Species,” p. 96.) Wood¬ 
ruff quotes Derham as saying that 
“spontaneous generation is a doc¬ 
trine so generally exploded that I 
shall not undertake to disprove it. ’ ’ 
Woodruff says: “Indeed, it is diffi¬ 
cult to overestimate the importance 
of [Francesco] Redi’s conclusion 
from either the theoretical or prac¬ 
tical viewpoint, for with it was 
definitely formulated the theory, 
which has gained content and im¬ 
petus as the years have rolled on, 
that matter does not assume the 
living state, at the present time at 
least, except under direct influence 
of pre-existing living matter.” 
(Lull, “Evolution of the Earth,” 
p. 91.) “Thus,” says Woodruff, 
“biologists are at the present time 
absolutely unable, and probably will 
be for all time unable, to obtain 
empirical evidence on any of the 

28 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


crucial questions relating to the 
origin of life on the earth.’’ (Lull, 
“Evolution of the Earth,” p. 107.) 
And Professor Lull, of Yale Uni¬ 
versity, says: “The first great crisis 
in the evolution of organic beings 
was the origin of life; the marvel¬ 
ously subtle combinations attained 
by certain very familiar inorganic 
elements increasing their molecular 
complexity until a substance was 
produced endowed with the attri¬ 
butes of life. Of this momentous 
event we have no record.” (Lull, 
“Evolution of the Earth,” p. 112.) 

Clearly, then, evolution gives us 
no explanation of the origin of life. 
It is thus forced to postulate the 
existence of living matter endowed 
with that power of hereditary 
transmission and with that ten¬ 
dency to vary found in all such 
matter. (Huxley, “Anatomy of 
Invertebrated Animals,” p. 41.) 

29 



in. 


The Origin of Conscious Life. 
S to the origin of conscious 



ajl life, there is the same un¬ 
certainty. The wide and deep gulf 
between the vegetable and animal 
kingdoms has never been bridged 
over. Evolution merely takes a fly¬ 
ing leap across this broad and mys¬ 
terious chasm. As to this transition, 
Darwin says: “Analogy would lead 
me one step further; namely, to the 
belief that all animals and plants 
are descended from some one proto¬ 
type/ ’ He admits that “ analogy 
may be a deceitful guide,” but then 
goes on to say: “Nevertheless, all 
living things have much in com¬ 
mon, in their chemical composition, 


30 


Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


their cellular structure, their laws 
of growth, and their liability to in¬ 
jurious influences. ... If we look 
even to the two main divisions— 
namely, to the animal and vegetable 
kingdoms—certain low forms are 
so far intermediate in character 
that naturalists have disputed to 
which kingdom they should be re¬ 
ferred. . . . Therefore, on the princi¬ 
ple of natural selection with diver¬ 
gence of character, it does not seem 
incredible that, from some such low 
and intermediate form, both ani¬ 
mals and plants may have been 
developed, and, if we admit this, 
we must likewise admit that all the 
organic beings which have lived on 
this earth may be descended from 
some one primordial form. ’ ? (“ Ori¬ 
gin of Species/’ p. 500.) 

But Alfred Russell Wallace made 
a full and frank admission of this 
abysmal break in the operation of 

31 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


evolution. He said: “The next 
stage is still more marvelous, still 
more completely beyond all possi¬ 
bility of explanation by matter, 
its laws and forces. It is the in¬ 
troduction of sensation or con¬ 
sciousness, constituting the funda¬ 
mental distinction between the ani¬ 
mal and vegetable kingdoms. Here 
all idea of mere complication of 
structure producing the result is 
out of the question. We feel it to 
be altogether preposterous to as¬ 
sume that at a certain stage of 
complexity of atomic constitution, 
and as a necessary result of that 
complexity alone, an ego should 
start into existence, a thing that 
feels, that is conscious of its own 
existence. Here we have the cer¬ 
tainty that something new has 
arisen, a being whose nascent con¬ 
sciousness has gone on increasing 
in power and definiteness till it has 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


culminated in the higher animals. 
No verbal explanation—such as the 
statement that life is the result of 
the molecular forces of the proto¬ 
plasm, or that the whole existing 
organic universe from the Ameba 
up to man was latent in the fire 
mist from which the solar system 
was developed—can afford any 
mental satisfaction, or help us in 
any way to a solution of the mys¬ 
tery/ ’ (Wallace, “ Darwinism/ ’ p. 
475.) Of this crisis Professor Lull, 
of Yale, says: “The definite fossil 
record thus established shows us 
that evolution of the great inverte¬ 
brate groups occurred largely be¬ 
fore the close of the Proterozoic, 
hence we may not speak confident¬ 
ly of cause and effect.” (Lull, 
“Evolution of the Earth,” p. 113.) 
It is not even known just when ani¬ 
mal life first appeared, much less 
have we any scientific evidence as 

33 


8 





Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 

to how it came to be. Henry Fair- 
field Osborn says: “We have no 
idea when the first unicellular ani¬ 
mals known as Protozoa appeared.” 
(“The Origin and Evolution of 
Life,” p. 111.) 

Thus, if the animal kingdom had 
its origin in the vegetable, or both 
in some lower and intermediate 
form, no trace of this marvelous 
transition is to be found. There is 
no scientific proof of it. 


e 


34 



IV. 


The Origin of Specific Forms 

of Life. 



HE origin of species in the 


A animal kingdom p r e s e n t s 
another difficult problem. In the 
animal kingdom, as in the vege¬ 
table, we find quite distinct classes, 
orders, families, genera and 
species. Evolution seeks so to re¬ 
late all these as to prove that they 
have a common origin, that all liv¬ 
ing forms have been derived 
through a process of gradual modi¬ 
fication by natural selection or 
otherwise, from one or a few simple 
forms of animal life. For confirma¬ 
tion of this hypothesis appeal is 
made to morphology, embryology, 


35 


Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


geology and other departments of 
science. As we study the different 
species, two facts are apparent: 
First, the tendency toward rapid 
multiplication through reproduc¬ 
tion, and, secondly, the tendency 
toward variation in color, form, size 
and structure. Various causes are 
assigned to account for these varia¬ 
tions and their supposed develop¬ 
ment into new species; such as 
natural selections, sexual selection, 
habit, use and disuse of organs, 
external conditions, such as climate 
and heredity. With reference to 
hereditary modification, there are 
two distinct schools, those who, 
with Darwin, believe that only con¬ 
genital variations are transmitted 
to the offspring, and those who, 
with Lamarck, contend that ac¬ 
quired as well as congenital modi¬ 
fications are thus transmitted. 
Darwin relies largely upon his 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


theory of natural selection to ac¬ 
count for the origin of species. He 
bases his theory on rapid multipli¬ 
cation, the tendency to vary and the 
struggle for existence. Perhaps 
it would be well to state his view 
in his own words: “Can it be 
thought improbable, seeing that 
variations useful to man have un¬ 
doubtedly occurred, that other 
variations useful in some way to 
each being in the great complex 
battle of life, should occur in the 
course of many generations? If 
such do occur, can we doubt (re¬ 
membering that many more in¬ 
dividuals are born than can possi¬ 
bly survive) that individuals hav¬ 
ing any advantage, however slight, 
over others, would have the best 
chance of surviving and procreat¬ 
ing their kind? On the other hand, 
we may feel sure that any variation 
in the least degree injurious would 

37 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 

,,, |,,||_ i __| JU^IU__I_ - HM ■! ■ I ■■ !■■■■ I II ■-T —. j.J i,gn L l 11 I _ I ■■■III llll I — I — H !■ 1 T»1T—T~ 

be rigidly destroyed. This preserva¬ 
tion of favorable individual differ¬ 
ences and variations, and the 
destruction of those which are 
injurious, I have called 6 Natural 
Selection’ or the * Survival of the 
Fittest.’ ” (“Origin of Species,” 

p. 74.) May I interject here the 
suggestion that if this statement 
were strictly true, certain species 
of moth that have the habit of play¬ 
ing with the fire should long since 
have become extinct, for that this 
habit is highly injurious is beyond 
question 1 Again he says: “It may 
metaphorically be said that natural 
selection is daily and hourly scru¬ 
tinizing, throughout the world, the 
slightest variations, rejecting all 
those that are bad, preserving and 
adding up all that are good; silently 
and insensibly working whenever 
or wherever opportunity offers, at 
the improvement of each organic 

38 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


being in relation to its organic and 
inorganic conditions of life.” 
(“Origin of Species,” p. 77.) He 
thus endows this child of his fancy, 
which he calls “Natural Selection,” 
with little short of omnipresence, 
omniscience and omnipotence, so 
far as the organic world is con¬ 
cerned. 

Many difficulties at once suggest 
themselves. Darwin himself ad¬ 
mitted: “That many and serious 
objections may be advanced against 
the theory of descent with modifi¬ 
cation, I do not deny.” 

1. No attempt whatever is made 
to account for the cause or causes 
of these slight differences that are 
constantly manifesting themselves. 
Often they are attributed to chance. 
Again, it is said that they are the 
result of the operation of unknown 
laws. The point to bear in mind 
is that natural selection is power- 

39 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


less until these variations occur, 
and, therefore, does not, in any 
way, account for their first appear¬ 
ance. Le Conte says: “It is evi¬ 
dent, then, that if we, with Darwin, 
take natural selection as the most 
important known factor, the real¬ 
ly most important cause of evolu¬ 
tion is the cause of varieties. This 
is the unknown fundamental fac¬ 
tor.” (“Evolution and Its Rela¬ 
tion to Religious Thought,” p. 80.) 

2. The theory presupposes an in¬ 
terminable number of intermediate 
and transitional forms connecting 
all these species together. But, as 
a matter of fact, if such forms ever 
existed, they have mysteriously dis¬ 
appeared without leaving any trace 
of their existence. They are cer¬ 
tainly not to be found among the 
living forms in the earth to-day. 
The fact that clearly defined 
species, genera, families, orders and 

40 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


classes are recognized by all scien¬ 
tists is sufficient evidence of the 
absence of these intermediate forms 
which would by slight gradations 
blend one species into another. 
Even Darwin admitted: “There are 
two or three millions of species on 
the earth. . . . But it must be said 
to-day that in spite of all the efforts 
of trained observers, not one change 
of one species into another is on 
record.’ ’ (“Life and Letters,” 
Vol. III., p. 25.) 

Therefore, we must look to past 
ages for confirmation of this view 
of a gradual and uniform develop¬ 
ment from a few generalized forms 
to the present countless specialized 
forms of life. But Professor Lull, 
in speaking of the evolution from 
water to land animals, says: “The 
waters, while a very necessary 
stimulus to chordate evolution, 
afford too restricted an environ- 


41 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


ment for the evolution of higher 
forms, and, as a consequence, all 
vertebrates, whose ancestry can be 
traced through an unending line of 
water inhabitants since the begin¬ 
ning of life on the earth, are but 
fishes, and, no matter to what degree 
they have been specialized, they 
could not have risen, nor can they 
ever rise, to a higher plane. The 
emergence from the limiting waters 
to the limitless air was absolutely es¬ 
sential to further development, and 
constitutes one of the greatest 
crises in organic evolution. To 
know the route of such migration 
is of the utmost importance if we 
could find a cause.” (Lull, “Evo¬ 
lution of the Earth,” pp. 119, 120.) 
He goes on further to say: “The 
question of the evolution of the 
pentadactyl hand and foot, which 
is the vertebrate standard, from the 
ancestral fish fin is not fully 

42 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


solved.” (Lull, “Evolution of the 
Earth / 9 p. 123.) In speaking of 
the evolution of mammals, he says: 
“The record of the actual transi¬ 
tion, however, is as yet unre¬ 
vealed. ” (Lull, “Evolution of the 
Earth,” p. 128.) In speaking of 
the evolution of birds, he says: 
“There is again no fossil record of 
transitional forms.” (Ibid, p. 129.) 

As a result of the most diligent 
search in fossil formations up to 
the present time, some interesting 
facts are revealed: 

(1) We find that the different 
species, even in the oldest fossil 
formations, are as clearly marked 
off from one another as among 
living forms. (Wallace, “Darwin¬ 
ism,” p. 376.) On this point Le 
Conte says: “In the earliest fauna 
known, the primordial (for if there 
was life in the archaean, it was not 
yet differentiated into fauna), all 

43 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


the great departments, except the 
vertebrates, seem to have been rep¬ 
resented.” (“ Evolution and Its 
Relation to Religious Thought,” p. 
146.) 

(2) We also find that new species 
often appear suddenly and in per¬ 
fection of type, and then sometimes 
disappear with equal suddenness. 
In speaking of the rise and ex¬ 
tinction of dinosaurs, Lull says: 
“What was the physical cause of 
this extinction, which is believed 
to have occurred in the Coman- 
chian, we do not know, for there 
is little evidence of a climatic 
change.” (Lull, “Evolution of the 
Earth,” p. 131.) Again he says: 
“So far as our records go, not one 
dinosaur of all the hosts that were, 
survived the Mesozoic, for un¬ 
doubted post-cretaceous rocks have 
not yielded a fragment of their re¬ 
mains. Why they became extinct 

44 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


no one knows.’’ (“Evolution of 
the Earth,” Lull, p. 132.) After 
the extinction of dinosaurs, the 
larger mammals suddenly appeared, 
and rapidly spread and flourished. 
“They are first actually recorded 
in the upper Triassic rocks of three 
rather remote localities, North 
Carolina, Germany and South 
Africa, and are already differenti¬ 
ated in dietary habits.” (Lull, 
“Evolution of the Earth,” p. 133.) 
But during the Mesozoic reign of 
dinosaurs, mammals were sup¬ 
pressed. “The archaic mammals 
barely survived the Eocene. . . . 
Early in the Eocene, however, are 
suddenly seen the vanguard of an 
army of invaders, none of which 
seem directly related to the na¬ 
tive mammals, appearing simul¬ 
taneously in North America and 
Europe.” (Lull, “Evolution of 
the Earth,” p. 135.) 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


Of the appearance and dis¬ 
appearance of species, Le Conte 
says: “A species may indeed pass 
out gradually, and another come 
in gradually, so far as number and 
vigor of individuals are concerned, 
but, in specific character, they may 
be said, usually, at least, to come 
in suddenly, with all their charac¬ 
ters perfect, remain unchanged 
throughout their whole range, and 
pass out suddenly at its borders.” 
(“ Evolution and Its Relation to 
Religious Thought,” p. 218.) 

(3) We find, further, that many 
forms have remained unchanged, 
unaffected by natural selection or 
any other process through enor¬ 
mous periods of time, a multitude 
especially of lowly organized forms 
remaining from the earliest known 
dawn of life to this present day. 
(“Origin of Species,” pp. 118, 119 
and 347.) For instance, the Lin- 

46 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


gula, a brachiopod, found in the 
primordial, has continued through 
all geological time down to the 
present with its characters un¬ 
changed. Henry Fairfield Osborn 
says: “A most significant biological 
fact is that certain of the primitive¬ 
ly armored and sessile brachiopods 
of the Cambrian Seas have re¬ 
mained almost unchanged generi- 
cally for a period of thirty million 
years, down to the present time. 
These animals afford a classic illus¬ 
tration of the rather exceptional 
condition, known to evolutionists 
as balance, resulting in absolute 
stability of type. Then he cites as 
examples the Lingula and the Tere- 
bratula, belonging to widely differ¬ 
ing families of brachiopods/’ (“The 
Origin and Evolution of Life,” pp. 
121 , 122 .) 

(4) We find, moreover, that the 
total number of species has not 

47 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


appreciably increased since the 
middle of the Tertiary period. Such 
an increase would naturally have 
occurred according to the theory 
of constant production of new 
species. 

The assertion is made, however, 
that in a few instances we do have 
fossil evidence of the development 
of higher types from lower through 
gradual modification, and the an¬ 
cestry of the horse is cited as a case 
in point. We are told that “the 
horse tribe, commencing with an 
early four-toed ancestor in the 
Eocene age, has increased in size 
and in perfect adaptation of feet 
and teeth to a life on open plains, 
and has reached its highest perfec¬ 
tion in the horse, the ass, and the 
zebra.’* (Wallace, 4 6 Darwinism,*'* 
p. 120.) There are three things 
worthy of notice in this supposed 
evolution of the horse: First, that, 

48 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


so far as structure is concerned, 
tlie change is from a complex to a 
more simple form, from four toes 
to one, and from complexity to sim¬ 
plicity in the bones of the legs. 
Second, that from the protohippus 
to the pliohippus there is a com¬ 
plete jump, from three toes to a 
single toe or hoof. Third, that, in 
any case, it is the evolution of a 
horse from a horse. 

Why is it that, everywhere the 
boundary-line between species has 
been crossed, the connecting forms 
between the species have not only 
become extinct, but have so com¬ 
pletely disappeared as to leave no 
evidence of their existence in fossil 
form ? For in no single instance, so 
far, have transitional forms been 
found of such a character as to 
make out a clear and certain case. 

In the face of all the facts, it 
would be rash to assume that 


4 


49 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


geology furnishes evidence of the 
existence of transitional forms, or 
gives proof of a gradual and uni¬ 
form development from simple 
forms to complex organic life by 
means of resident forces. 

3. Another difficulty that pre¬ 
sents itself is the fact that there is 
a remarkable difference between 
varieties and species with respect 
to fertility when crossed. As a 
rule, varieties, when crossed, are 
fertile, and their progeny continue 
to be so, while species, when crossed, 
are usually infertile, and where 
hybrid offspring are produced they 
are absolutely infertile. (Wallace, 
“ Darwinism, ” p. 153; Darwin, 
“Origin of Species,’’ p. 23.) This 
is true even in such closely allied 
species as the horse and the ass. 
“The mule still stubbornly flouts 
the theory of the transmutation of 
species.” 


50 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


4. Two other phenomena diffi¬ 
cult to reconcile with the theory of 
descent w T ith modification through 
natural selection have been re¬ 
ferred to as reversed adaptation 
and alternate adaptation. Osborn 
says: “In no less than eleven out 
of eighteen orders of reptiles re¬ 
versed adaptation to a renewal of 
aquatic life took place;” for in¬ 
stance, “in the passage from the 
reptilian foot into the fin of the 
aquatic reptile and with equal clear¬ 
ness in the passage of the wing of 
the flying bird into the fin of the 
swimming bird.” He goes on to 
say: “Still more remarkable than 
the law of reversed adaptation 
is that of alternate adaptation.” 
He gives as an illustration the 
leatherbacks, a highly specialized 
type of sea turtles, which supposed¬ 
ly passed from land to marine ani¬ 
mals and then through various 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


transitions back again to land ani¬ 
mals. (“The Origin and Evolu¬ 
tion of Life,” pp. 198-202.) 

5. There is as yet no satisfactory 
explanation of the development of 
such organs as the wing, the 
hand, the foot or the eye, even 
granting that thousands or millions 
of generations were consumed in 
the process. Natural selection does 
not account for them, because 
natural selection is based on the 
usefulness of variations to the or¬ 
ganism, and in what way an incipi¬ 
ent wing, especially in the early 
stages, could be of use to any crea¬ 
ture it is impossible to see. And 
it is even more incredible that an 
incipient eye could be of any ser¬ 
vice whatsoever. Le Conte says: 
“But not only does not natural selec¬ 
tion explain the origin of varieties, 
but neither can it explain the first 
steps of advance toward usefulness. 

52 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


An organ must be already useful 
before natural selection can take 
hold of it to improve it. It can 
not make it useful, but only more 
useful.” And then he adds: “It 
would seem that many organs must 
have passed through this incipient 
stage, in which their use was pros¬ 
pective.” (“Evolution and Its 
Relation to Religious Thought,” 
pp. 270, 271.) All other theories 
of gradual development are just as 
impotent to account for these or¬ 
gans as is the theory of natural 
selection. Even Wallace says: “It 
is evident that these peculiarities 
had their origin at a very remote 
period of the earth’s history, and 
no theory, however complete, can 
do more than afford a probable con¬ 
jecture as to how they were pro¬ 
duced.” (Wallace, “Darwinism,” 
p. 7.) Furthermore, in considering 
the possibility of the evolution of 

53 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


such an organ as the eye through 
incredibly slow changes we should 
not forget that the Cephalopods 
found in the Primordial, in the very 
first fossil remains, supposedly 
thirty to fifty million years old, 
had fully developed eyes approach¬ 
ing in complexity the eyes of man. 
One can not forbear wondering how 
many billions of years would have 
been required for the gradual 
development of the eye prior to 
that time. That this is a serious 
difficulty is evident from the fact 
that Darwin said: “If it could be 
demonstrated that any complex 
organ existed, which could not pos¬ 
sibly have been formed by numer¬ 
ous, successive, slight modifications, 
my theory would absolutely break 
down.” (“Origin of Species,” p. 
174.) 

6. And how shall we account for 
the instinct of the honey-bees 

54 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


through any process of development 
by gradual change or modification? 
An instinct so wonderful as to chal¬ 
lenge the enthusiastic admiration 
of every thoughtful man! They 
make the cells of the comb of pre¬ 
cisely that shape, according to 
mathematicians, which with the 
least consumption of materials will 
afford the largest capacity with 
the necessary strength, and all this 
is done by multitudes of bees work¬ 
ing in the darkness of the hive. 
(“Origin of Species,” p. 260.) 
Their instinct for gathering and 
storing the honey is little less re¬ 
markable. How could such an in¬ 
stinct have been gradually acquired 
or slowly developed? It is incon¬ 
ceivable to me, especially in view 
of the fact that the bees who do all 
the work are sterile females, thus 
having no power to transmit these 
instincts. Nor should it be for- 

55 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


gotten that both the fertile males 
and females, through whom they 
are produced, widely differ in 
both instinct and structure from 
the workers, and are totally lack¬ 
ing in the instincts of the neuters, 
and, therefore, are unable to trans¬ 
mit them to their progeny. Similar 
difficulties present themselves when 
we consider the wonderful instincts 
of the beaver, the water spider and 

the ant. Even Huxlev was com- 

«/ 

pelled to admit: “After much con¬ 
sideration, and with assuredly no 
bias against Mr. Darwin’s views, 
it is our clear conviction that as the 
evidence now stands it is not abso¬ 
lutely proved that a group of ani¬ 
mals, having all the characteristics 
exhibited by species in nature, has 
ever been originated by selection, 
whether natural or artificial.” 
(“Lay Sermons,” p. 295.) 


56 



V. 


The Origin of Self-conscious 
. Life. 

W E are confronted, however, 
with our most difficult prob¬ 
lems in the effort to demonstrate 
that man had his origin in the low¬ 
est form of animal life, and has 
come to his present erect carriage 
and exalted character and attain¬ 
ments by slow and gradual modifi¬ 
cation through natural selection or 
some other process. 

That there is a general re¬ 
semblance between the structure 
of man’s body and that of certain 
of the lower animals, especially the 
anthropoid apes, there can be no 
question. It is further true that 

57 


Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


the human embryo, up to a certain 
stage, is very much like that of ani¬ 
mals, at a certain stage resembling 
that of the clog and later that of the 
ape. Furthermore, there is no 
doubt that the locations of the 
brain centers of control in man cor¬ 
respond to those of certain animals, 
and that there are certain diseases 
common to man and some of the 
lower animals. It is contended 
that the human embryo, from the 
egg on, is but a recapitulation of 
man’s ancestral history. Thus Pro¬ 
fessor Conklin savs: “ Indeed, devel- 
opment from the egg recapitulates 
some of the main stages of evolu¬ 
tion; in it we see evolution repeated 
before our eyes.” (“Evolution and 
the Bible,” by Conklin.) But as 
Professor Fairhurst says: “It is 
well known, however, that there are 
radical differences between the 
embryos of vertebrates and inverte- 

58 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


brates. Worms and other articu¬ 
lates in embryo lie doubled back¬ 
wards around the yolk, while all 
vertebrates are doubled in the op¬ 
posite direction. According to the 
theory that the embryonic condi¬ 
tion is a recapitulation of the 
stages of organic evolution, this 
fundamental fact of invertebrate 
embryology ought to have been pre¬ 
served by the vertebrate, and it 
ought, at least, to pass through a 
stage of development bent back¬ 
ward around the yolk. Evolution 
gives no account of this reversal 
of position by the vertebrates.’’ 
(“Organic Evolution Considered,” 
p. 145.) “Why should the whole 
first half of the history of evolution 
be not even hinted at in the epit¬ 
ome?” (“Organic Evolution Con¬ 
sidered,” p. 147.) 

It is also to be remembered that 
the young mammal is never like 

59 





Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 

the worm, the fish or the reptile. 
The most that can be said is that 
in some respects he is like the 
young of these in various stages. 
Baer says that he can tell the dif¬ 
ference between the embryo of the 
common fowl and the duck on the 
second day. (“ Principles of Biol¬ 
ogy,” p. 1.) Prof. A. Agassiz says: 
“Anything beyond a general par¬ 
allelism is hopeless.” (“The Other 
Side of Evolution,” Alex. Patter¬ 
son, p. 50.) And Prof. J. Arthur 
Thomson, of Edinburgh, says: “Re¬ 
capitulation is due to no dead hands 
of the past, but to physiological 
conditions which we are unable to 
discover.” (“Outline of Zoology,” 
p. 63.) Huxley says: “In practice, 
however, the reconstruction of the 
pedigree of a group from the devel¬ 
opmental history of its existing 
members is fraught with difficulties. 
It is highly probable that the series 

60 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


of developmental stages of the in¬ 
dividual organism never presents 
more than an abbreviated and con¬ 
densed summary of ancestral condi¬ 
tions; while the summary is often 
strangely modified by variation and 
adaptation to conditions, and it 
must be confessed that in most 
cases we can do little better than 
guess what is genuine recapitula¬ 
tion of ancestral forms, and what is 
the effect of comparatively late 
adaptations. The only perfectly 
safe foundation for the doctrine of 
evolution lies in the historical, or 
rather the archaeological, evidence 
that particular organisms have 
arisen by the gradual modification 
of their predecessors, which is fur¬ 
nished by fossil remains. ” (“ An¬ 

atomy of Invertebrated Animals,” 
pp. 42, 43.) 

Thus it would seem that embry¬ 
ology does not furnish evidence 

61 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


sufficient to satisfy the mind of so 
ardent and keen an evolutionist as 
Huxley. 

As to fossil remains, none have 
been found which could be con¬ 
sidered as transitional forms be¬ 
tween the anthropoid apes and man. 
All evolutionists are agreed that 
“no existing species of anthropoid 
apes could have been our ances¬ 
tors/ J They agree that these apes 
and we “are collateral descendants 
from ape-like species living far, 
far back in geologic time. ,, (Keene, 
“I Believe in God and Evolution ,’ 7 
p. 87.) But the “man-like ape,” 
“the ape-like man” and “man’s 
ape-like progenitor” are all crea¬ 
tures of the imagination. Geology 
knows nothing of them. Darwin ac¬ 
knowledged that “connecting links 
have not hitherto been discovered.” 
(“Descent of Man,” p. 166.) And 
it may be added that to this day 

62 



Questions Evolution Does Not A?iswer 


none lias been discovered. He ad¬ 
mits that “the great break in the 
organic chain between man and his 
nearest allies can not be bridged 
over by any extinct or living 
species.’’ (“Descent of Man,” p. 
177.) Professor Huxley says: “In 
conclusion, I may say that the fossil 
remains of man hitherto discovered 
do not seem to me to take us appre¬ 
ciably nearer to that lower pithe¬ 
coid form by the modification of 
which he has probably become what 
he is.” (Wallace, “Darwinism,” p. 
456.) 

Wallace says: “A large popula¬ 
tion spread over an extensive area 
is also needed to supply an ade¬ 
quate number of brain variations 
for man’s progressive improvement. 
But this large population and long- 
continued development in a single 
line of advance renders it the more 
difficult to account for the complete 

63 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 

absence of human or pre-human re¬ 
mains in all those deposits which 
have furnished in such rich abun¬ 
dance the remains of other land 
animals. ’ ’ (Wallace , i 6 Darwinism, ’ ’ 
p. 458.) 

Remains of prehistoric man thus 
far discovered have been very 
meager (indeed, they might all be 
put in a barrel), and have utterly 
failed to justify faith in man’s ape¬ 
like ancestry. We have heard much 
of some of these remains. 

1. The Trinil ape-man of Java, 
generally referred to as “ Pithe¬ 
canthropus/ ’ is considered the old¬ 
est of these remains, and is declared 
to be approximately five hundred 
thousand years old. The fragments 
consist of a skull-cap, three teeth 
and a left femur. They were found 
scattered through twenty yards of 
space, and were not all discovered 
at the same time. 

64 




Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


The skull-cap indicates inferior 
intelligence, but the cranial capac¬ 
ity was as great as that of some 
men to-day, and twice as large as 
that of an ape. 

The straightness of the thigh¬ 
bone indicates that his “posture 
must have been fully as erect as in 
modem man.”— Lull. 

“The teeth of the Java man are 
also of a distinctly human type.”— 
Lull. 

“Dr. Dubois, a Dutch army sur¬ 
geon, the owner of the fragments, 
will not permit their further study 
by his colleagues.”— Lull. 

2. Of the Heidelberg man only a 
lower jaw was found, but this was 
complete. It is heavy and massive, 
with receding chin. 

“The teeth are regularly placed 
and the canines are not in any way 
bestial in their development, less 
so, indeed, than in some modern 

5 65 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


men.”— Lull . He is supposed to 
be about four hundred thousand 
years old. 

3. In the case of the Piltdown 
man, fragments of a skull, a ramus 
of the jaw with several molars in 
place, a canine tooth and two nasal 
bones were found. 

The cranium is very thick walled, 
but the “skull was nicely balanced 
on the neck, as in ourselves, imply¬ 
ing an erect posture, a rather mod¬ 
ern-looking cranium.”— Lull. 

The jaw and teeth are simian in 
character, but it is by no means 
certain that they belong with the 
skull. Henry Fairfield Osborn 
says: “Even at this writing (1918), 
it is not finally agreed that the Pilt¬ 
down jaw belongs with the Pilt¬ 
down skull, because the new evi¬ 
dence brought forward by Hr. 
Smith Woodward, although strong, 
is not deemed entirely conclusive.” 

66 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


(“Men of the Old Stone Age,” p. 
14.) Lull says: “These remains 
occurred so near the present land 
surface that had they not shown 
evidence of great structural an¬ 
tiquity, their authenticity would 
be greatly in doubt.” They are 
supposed to be between two and 
three hundred thousand years old. 

4. Of the type of man known as 
Neandertal, numerous remains have 
been found at various times. 

They indicate a man of low stat¬ 
ure, probably about five feet three 
inches high. 

The skull is very large, with a 
cranial capacity considerably ex¬ 
ceeding that of the average modern 
man. 

He was not as erect in carriage 
as Pithecanthropus or the Pilt- 
down man. 

5. The Rhodesian man was more 
advanced than the Neandertal man. 

67 


6 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


Of him a skull and part of a lower 
jaw were found. 

Keith says the estimated content 
of the skull “falls between a mod¬ 
ern English and an ancient French 
skull.” 

“The head was well balanced on 
the neck, and this, together with 
the straight shin, and the charac¬ 
ter of the ends of the thigh-bone, 
imply a fully erect posture.”— Lull . 
“The palate is so broad and 
rounded that it is less ape-like than 
in the modern negro.”— Lull . 

6. The Cro-magnon man is truly 
Homo sapiens of the highest type. 
The height averages six feet one 
and a half inches in young men and 
six feet four and a half inches in 
the old men. 

“The skull is very large, even the 
female brain exceeding that of the 
average male to-day.” “The skull 
is entirely modern. ... Nor is the 




Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


brain in any way distinctive from 
that of existing, man. . . . The facial 
angle is equal to that of the high¬ 
est modem man. * ’— Lull. 

Most of the above prehistoric 
remains were taken from a lecture 
on 44 The Antiquity of Man,” by 
Professor Lull. 

What meager evidence we have, 
then, goes to show that prehistoric 
man was as erect in carriage and 
had about as good a head on his 
shoulders as the average modern 
man. 

Professor Lull, in giving a sum¬ 
mary of the recorded changes in 
prehistoric man, says of him: 44 Stat¬ 
ure increasing and becoming more 
erect, although the earliest known 
hominid, Pithecanthropus, was 
fully upright.” (Lull, 4 4 Evolu¬ 
tion of Man,” p. 37.) In other 
words, so far as we have any knowl¬ 
edge of prehistoric man, he was 

69 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


always as upstanding as Homo 
sapiens to-day. He goes on to add: 
“As yet, there is no actual connec¬ 
tion with ape-like forms ancestral 
to both the modern apes and 
(Lull, “Evolution of Man,” p. 38.) 
One more paragraph from Lull will 
show how vain is the effort to prove 
from prehistoric remains man’s 
pithecoid ancestry. He says: “Sup¬ 
posedly associated with the Poxhall 
flints” (which are placed in the 
upper Pliocene) “was found a 
human jaw which unfortunately 
can not now be located. If it could 
be found, and the certainty of asso¬ 
ciation be determined, it would far 
antedate both that of Piltdown and 
of Heidelberg. The figure which 
Osborn published of this jaw, from 
the original, by Collyer, in 1867, is 
remarkable in that it is the jaw of 
Homo sapiens, if correctly drawn, 
and not primitive at all. But this 

70 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


is exactly what Keith’s arguments 
would lead us to expect.” (Lull, 
“ Evolution of Man,” p. 37.) 
Keith’s contention is that Homo 
sapiens appeared at a remote time, 
flourished for awhile, and dis¬ 
appeared, to be replaced by the 
more primitive, but not ancestral, 
Neandertal man of Mousterian 
time.” (Lull, “Evolution of Man,” 
p. 35.) That is to say, the Heidel¬ 
berg man, the Java man and the 
Piltdown man are not connecting 
links between modern man and his 
supposed ape-like ancestors, be¬ 
cause Homo sapiens was on the 
scene when they arrived, if not 
before. 

So far as historic man is con¬ 
cerned, there is no evidence of 
marked progress or development. 
Professor Conklin says: “In bodily 
evolution man has made no very 
marked progress during the last 

71 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


twenty thousand years at least. 
. . . The physical evolution of man 
has slowed down almost to a 
standstill. . . . Since the times of 
the Cro-magnon race, probably 
twenty thousand years ago, there 
has been no marked increase in 
man’s cranial capacity, and prob¬ 
ably little or no increase in his 
inherent intellectual ability. . . . 
The only great progress which the 
human race has made during the 
past twenty thousand years has been 
social, and, so far as we can now see 
into the future, the progressive evo¬ 
lution of mankind must depend to 
a great extent on society.” (Lull, 
“Evolution of Man,” pp. 162-64.) 

Pres. J ames Rowland Angell, 
of Yale, in speaking of the evolu¬ 
tion of intelligence, says: “So far 
as we can judge by the evidence in 
historic times, there is no reason 
whatever to suppose that the na- 

72 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


tive intellectual abilities of the 
average American citizen are in 
any way superior to those of the 
Egyptians four thousand years be¬ 
fore Christ, or the Homeric Greeks, 
or to others of the peoples of that 
general period in the Mediterra¬ 
nean basin, records of whose civili¬ 
zation have come more or less com¬ 
pletely to our knowledge. ... In 
other words, since the period of 
historic records, there is no con¬ 
vincing evidence of marked de¬ 
velopment in human intelligence, 
despite the enormous advances 
made in the paraphernalia of civil¬ 
ization/ J (Lull, “Evolution of 
Man,” p. 115.) 

How, then, shall evolution ac¬ 
count for those faculties of man 
which absolutely distinguish him 
from all the rest of the animal 
kingdom—his mental endowments, 
articulate speech, his power of ab- 

73 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


stract reasoning, his appreciation 
of the beauties of nature, his enjoy¬ 
ment of music, his moral sense, 
conscience, his dominion over the 
rest of creation, his religious faith, 
his belief in Grod? Even Lull ad¬ 
mits: “The intelligence of man so 
far surpasses that of his nearest 
competitors, the anthropoids, that 
the mental gulf between them is 
immeasurable.” (Lull, “Evolu¬ 
tion of Man,” p. 38.) 

Wallace frankly concedes that 
this is a gulf which evolution can 
not bridge. He says: “We find the 
most pronounced distinction be¬ 
tween man and the anthropoid apes 
in the size and complexity of his 
brain.” He then quotes Huxley’s 
words: “It may be doubted whether 
a healthy human adult brain ever 
weighed less than thirty-one or 
thirty-two ounces, or that the 
heaviest gorilla brain has exceeded 

*' 74 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


twenty ounces/’ although “a full- 
grown gorilla is probably pretty 
nearly twice as heavy as a Bosjes 
man, or as many an European 
woman.” The difference is even 
more marked when we remember 
that the average human brain 
weighs forty-eight or forty-nine 
ounces, even if the average ape 
brain weighs as much as eighteen 
ounces, or only two ounces less than 
the largest gorilla’s. (Wallace, 
“Darwinism,” p. 458.) Wallace 
concludes “that we possess in¬ 
tellectual and moral faculties which 
could not have been so developed 
( i . e. y under the law of natural selec¬ 
tion), but must have had another 
origin, and for this origin we can 
only find adequate cause in the un¬ 
seen universe of spirit.” (Wallace, 
“Darwinism,” p. 478.) And even 
Huxley, agnostic though he 
claimed to be, as already quoted, 

75 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


said: “One thing which weighs 
with me against pessimism and 
tells for a benevolent author of the 
universe, is my enjoyment of 
scenery and music. I do not see 
how they can have helped in the 
struggle for existence. They are 
gratuitous gifts.” (Wallace, “Dar¬ 
winism,” p. 478.) 

With reference to the appearance 
of man, Le Conte makes some very 
interesting observations. He says: 
“Next and last, and only with the 
appearance of man, another entire¬ 
ly different and far higher factor 
was introduced; viz., conscious, 
voluntary co-operation in the work 
of his own evolution, a conscious, 
voluntary striving to attain an 
ideal. We have called this a factor, 
but it is much more than a mere 
factor, co-ordinate with other fac¬ 
tors. It is, rather, a different kind 
of evolution. It is evolution on a 

76 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


higher plane and by another na¬ 
ture. As physical nature works 
unconsciously, using certain fac¬ 
tors, so spiritual nature works con¬ 
sciously, co-operating and using the 
same factors.’’ (“Evolution and 

Its Relation to Religious Thought,” 
p. 86.) Again he says: “With 
reason another and infinitely higher 
factor is introduced, which, in its 
turn, assumes control, and not only 
quickens the rate, but elevates the 
whole plane of evolution. . . . This 
is by far the greatest change which 
has ever occurred in the history of 
evolution.” (“Evolution and Its 
Relation to Religious Thought,” p. 
87.) And once more he says: “Be¬ 
sides the unconscious evolution by 
natural laws, inherited from below, 
there is a higher evolution, in¬ 
herited from above, indissolubly 
connected with man’s spiritual na¬ 
ture.” (“Evolution and Its Rela- 

77 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


tion to Religious Thought/’ p. 27.) 
It is impossible for me to see how 
these statements can be reconciled 
with Le Conte’s own general defini¬ 
tion of evolution as “continuous 
progressive change, according to 
certain laws, by means of resident 
forces ” 

Dr. William W. Keene, in his re¬ 
cent interesting little brochure on 
“I Believe in God and Evolution,” 
has this to say: “Human life is the 
gradual unfolding of a majestic 
drama, covering aeons of time. In 
its dawn we see man groping his 
way towards the light, then slow¬ 
ly, but surely, developing his in¬ 
tellectual life, and, finally, how or 
when we know not how, but doubt¬ 
less we shall know in the future, in 
the immortal life, the engrafting 
by the Creator upon his bodily life 
of a moral and spiritual life, a soul 
with a desire to worship, a faculty 

78 

t 

-f. < 

f «* 

V*' I < I 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


of adoration and of communion 
with his heavenly Father. ’ ’ 

Hutchinson, in “This Freedom/’ 
aptly remarks: “There is in the 
study of man nothing more curious 
or more interesting than the natural 
bent of an individual mind. An 
arrow shot to the north and another 
from the same bow to the south 
spring not apart more swiftly, or 
more opposedly, than the minds of 
two children brought up from one 
mother in the same nursery. The 
natural bent of each determines it.” 
(“This Freedom,” p. 94.) Hutch¬ 
inson is right, for there is nothing 
in all the rest of the animal king¬ 
dom comparable to this amazing 
tendency of men. It is as if a pure- 
blooded collie, bred to one of her 
kind, were to find herself the mother 
of a litter of pups, one of a bulldog, 
another a pointer, another a setter 
and still another a fox-terrier. But 

79 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


such a thing does not happen. 
Other animals run true to form. 
The pups of a collie will all have 
the same general instincts, some to 
a lesser and others to a greater 
degree; all will be collies. With 
man, however, the case is different, 
for the widest range of ability, 
tastes and talents and the most 
surprising differences are often 
found in the children of the same 
father and mother. 

If the average man presents such 
staggering difficulties to evolution, 
how will it account for the genius 
of such men as Socrates, Plato and 
Aristotle, of Shakespeare, Milton 
and Browning, of Newton, Watt, 
Stephenson and Edison, of Wash¬ 
ington, Lincoln and Gladstone? 
How will it begin to explain the 
matchless person and character of 
Jesus Christ, the most stupendous 
and revolutionary fact of history? 

80 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


Neither before nor since His day 
have we anything that approaches 
Him in perfection and beauty of 
character. Nor can we conceive of 
any one yet to be bom who will 
rival Him. 

In seeking the final cause and 
author of all life as we know it, we 
can do no better than to heed the 
words of Paul in his address to the 
Athenians on Mars’ Hill: “Whom 
therefore ye ignorantly worship, 
him declare I unto you. God that 
made the world and all things 
therein, seeing that He is Lord of 
heaven and earth, dwelleth not in 
temples made with hands; neither 
is worshipped with man’s hands as 
though he needed anything, seeing 
he giveth to all life and breath and 
all things; and hath made of one 
blood all nations of men to dwell 
on all the face of the earth, and 
hath determined the times before 


81 



Questions Evolution Does Not Answer 


appointed, and the bounds of their 
habitation: that they should seek 
the Lord, if haply they might feel 
after him, though he be not far 
from every one of us: for in him 
we live and move and are.” (Acts 
17:23-28.) 

Just how He made the worlds; 
the seons of time He took to do it; 
through what processes He created 
and developed organic life as we 
know it to-day; in just what way 
He made man of the dust of the 
ground, whether directly or in¬ 
directly—all these are fascinating 
questions worthy of the most care¬ 
ful study. But the final answers will 
not be had till we enter upon that 
larger, fuller life in the world to 
come. For, “now we see in a 
mirror darkly, but then face to 
face; now we know in part, but 
then we shall know fully even as 
also we are fully known.” 

82 



"Their rock is not as our Rock, 
even our enemies themselves 
being judges.” —Deut. 32:31. 



















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2016 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
1724) 779-2111 











































































































